Reclaiming Science for Peace: Towards a Just and Interdependent Planetary Future

On this International Day of Science and Peace, we write as a small group of concerned next-generation science diplomats and global citizens to discuss and elaborate on the conjunction of knowledge and socio-ecological well-being. We do not frame “science” or “peace” in their usual sense because the history of science does not naturally suggest peace, and neither term is absolute or unproblematic. Science is in reality a broad category of inquiry that has only in the last two centuries been narrowed to refer to one specific Eurocentric (also called Western) lineage. All societies have engaged in diverse sciences and ways of knowing in relation to their inhabited worlds. Not only does today’s highly technologized and capitalized science owe immense debts to innovators the world over, but there are many valid scientific traditions that are not recognized by institutions of imperial Western science. Among these are the thousands of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, carried in languages, stories, practices, and ways of life, as well as many other knowledge systems targeted for erasure on the Euro-American path of conquest, exploitation, and destruction. These too deserve to be called science and warrant a more respectful and humble kind of engagement than they currently receive in the halls of power.

Western scientific knowledge has been put in service to countless human endeavors, among them medicine and war, agriculture, extractive industries, and infrastructure. Science can serve the interests of peace, but is frequently subject to abuse, appropriation, and, increasingly, misrepresentation. Today, among members of the elite global minority (Campbell-Stevens, 2021), science appears to be a relatively peaceful arena of cooperation and exchange, conceived in terms of shared benefits for all of humanity, and considered to be a key avenue for achieving wider geopolitical consensus and advancing prosperity. The post-WWII era ushered in over half a century of international institution-building and intellectual collaboration as a counterbalance to national scientific competition, exemplified by the Cold War-driven Space Race. The means by which scientific advancements were distributed, however, were frequently exploitative and created new forms of inequality in “post-colonial” nation-states. Since the false flag of history’s end was raised after the collapse of the USSR, it has been widely thought that humanity was tentatively moving forward in unity and that there is a truly global, secular-scientific community producing goods and imaginaries whose benefits do not discriminate by ethnicity, nationality, language, or race. The mechanism by which this has been achieved is generally understood as “science for diplomacy”, where science is cast as a common good and interest for all the world’s people. As UNEP and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make clear, this has served as a convenient and, importantly, hopeful fiction. 

Western science has and continues to serve the needs and interests of the global minority, who leverage accumulated capital and access to technologies to perpetuate colonialism and extractive economics in the homelands and waters of the global majority. The success of Western science in manipulating and instrumentalizing environmental materials towards economic and geostrategic goals has ensured its hegemonic presence in virtually all high-level international fora. The framing of science as a universal language for determining universal principles hides how its Euro-American institutionalization marginalizes and erases the diverse knowledge contributions of humanity. The global majority is largely excluded from the scientific mainstream, as Western-trained researchers are expected to publish in often inaccessible, expensive, and exclusively English-language journals. This separation has created a stark divide in how non-English speaking, less well-resourced knowledge holders from the global majority can contribute to international science. Science as a peaceful endeavor among the world’s wealthy nations may appear a complement to diplomacy, but rests on a longer history of knowledge enclosures, instrumentalizations, and weaponizations by national and transnational elites at the expense of the global majority, Indigenous Peoples, and minoritized peoples. If we want to highlight how science contributes to peace, we need to separate the aspects that promote understanding from those that reinforce power, exploitation, and dominance.

The UN Environmental Program’s (UNEP) latest climate projections confirm that the goals of the Paris Agreement are under severe threat, demanding urgent and transformative global action. But it comes as no surprise that the international community has thus far failed to respond to the years of Western climate science to limit planetary warming: success in the global economy remains dependent on an energy-intensive extractive industry-based economic growth model. This model, directly linked to planetary warming, has been repudiated since, at least, the 1972 Club of Rome report on growth’s unalterable limits. Furthermore, political systems in major industrial nations are increasingly blocked by multinational corporate influence, anti-science rhetoric, and overoptimistic faith in technology leading to decision-making divorced from the scientific evidence of human impacts on planetary health (Faerron, et al., 2025). Though technological solutions are evolving, none are perfect or fully capable of solving this collective problem. Blunt force strategies like geoengineering are likely to escalate risk and offload many of its consequences onto “green sacrifice zones” which are often in the homes of Indigenous and other minoritized peoples (Pereira, 2025). Emerging markets that trade in the right to pollute through “carbon credits” and “nature based solutions” (also promoted by major conservation organizations) further complicate and obscure growth dependencies. Carbon capture technologies seek to promote planetary health, but are hamstrung by issues of scale, resources, and cost. Even the gradual adoption of renewable energy systems, which are also linked to greenwashing and harming Indigenous and other minoritized communities, does not actually reduce dependence on fossil fuels, which remain integral to the mineral extraction and transportation economics required of “decarbonizing” programs. Only by turning away from such false solutions can global leadership begin tackling the root challenges of climatic and social destabilization.

Power differentials complicate the value and use of science in both domestic and international contexts. From the perspective of international environmental law, it is important to remember the historically uneven landscape of economic development, which is addressed in the 1992 Rio Declaration by the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and mobilized through frameworks like the Paris Agreement. While the 1972 Club of Rome's warnings rightly highlight the planet’s systemic limits, representatives of the global majority have legitimately invoked sovereign rights over the natural resources within their nations’ borders with the stated goal of pursuing sustainable development through balancing economic goals with environmental protections. Within the current international order, the sovereignty of nation-states is, in principle, uncontested, normalizing multiple scales of hierarchy and dispossession. This creates tensions between economic and environmental justice, where mutual constraints on sovereign action are necessary to meet climate, biodiversity, and human rights goals, yet are often dictated by the most egregious polluters to the disadvantage of communities in developing economies. The failure to curb global warming reflects negotiated compromises in the Paris Agreement, which relies on voluntary, nationally-determined contributions rather than enforceable emission targets, resulting in staggered progress amid growing global power imbalances.

International ocean governance is one of the most critical arenas for science diplomacy, as more than three billion people worldwide depend directly on the ocean for their livelihoods, while the remainder require healthy oceans for the maintenance of a stable climate. Ocean governance is dynamically evolving to balance technological innovation with environmental protection, demonstrating that legal frameworks can adapt to new insights and demands without abandoning core principles. The Law of the Sea and other regimes for areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), such as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions (BBNJ) Agreement, entering into force in early 2026, lay out a path for how international law can bring together multiple and plural knowledge systems, including Indigenous Sciences, into decision-making processes. Through instruments like environmental impact assessments and benefit-sharing mechanisms, the BBNJ can potentially mitigate development risks while advancing peace and security through cooperative marine scientific research (BBNJ, Article 14; UNCLOS, part XIII). These instruments show that meaningful change can occur within the existing international legal system, using science-based diplomacy to share adaptation responsibilities fairly and reduce the risk of conflict over common resources like the global hydrosphere and cryosphere.

As the well-resourced scientists of the global minority prepare for the 2032–33 International Polar Year (IPY), the latest chapter in one of the world’s longest-running research programs, questions have emerged about the scope and priorities shaping this effort. Notably, the “third pole” encompassing major high-altitude mountain regions in lower-to-mid latitudes—does not feature in the IPY-5 framework. This omission highlights the influence of institutional agenda-setting, particularly by countries and institutions within the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), and raises important considerations about how the positionality of global research initiatives defines their geographic and thematic boundaries. The omission of the third pole in the IPY framework not only excludes key representatives of the global cryosphere (from the Himalayas and elsewhere), but seems to undermine the spirit of Article 2 of the Antarctic Treaty System’s Protocol on Environmental Protection, which requires comprehensive assessment of activities affecting dependent and associated ecosystems beyond the Antarctic Treaty area (ATA). This matters because these regions are not isolated; they are interwoven into the global hydrological and climatic system. High mountain regions, alongside the Arctic and Antarctic, shape water cycles, ocean currents, and climate stability. Changes in glaciers, permafrost, and sea levels, ripple far beyond their origins, influencing weather patterns and human and environmental security worldwide. If science is to foster peace and resilience, it must recognize this interdependence and move beyond narrow, uninclusive frameworks, ensuring that climate costs and adaptation resources are shared equitably.

In the spirit of “Relevant International Decades” and in the rhythm of International Years and Days, the ongoing UN Ocean Decade of Ocean Sciences for Sustainable Development 2021-2030 and the Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences 2025-2034 draw critical attention to humanity’s common and vital dependence on water. The Next-Generation Science Diplomats Committee of the University of the Arctic (UArctic) Thematic Network on Science Diplomacy and Thematic Network on Arctic Law will host a series of discussions in 2026 that we hope can galvanize concrete action for collectively responding to a “world in flow”. 

• On 17 January, when the landmark Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction - known as the BBNJ Agreement enters into force, we will convene a dialogue on the intimate relationship between alpine and deep sea ecosystems. 
• On the Spring Equinox, 21-22 March, spanning the World Day for Glaciers and World Water Day and coinciding with the International Nowruz Day–which marks the 'new day' of renewal and rebirth–we will continue this dialogue to highlight how international water and maritime law, governing human rights to clean water and oceans, must adapt to account for mutual intrusions of salt, fresh, and contaminated waters across boundaries.

• On 9 August, with the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, we propose to partner with the Global Indigenous Youth Summit on Climate Change to extend this dialogue to the question of stewardship, considering the troubled relationship between Indigenous Peoples,,national governments, and ongoing settler colonialism. How can tools and knowledges emerging from diverse systems of law can be leveraged towards transformative solutions. 
• Finally, we will come full circle to the International Day of Science and Peace to draw some conclusions on how the IPY can allocate intellectual and material resources towards comprehensive resilience-building and conflict reduction in the warming poles.

In conclusion, we wish to reiterate that science is not apolitical and cannot remain a siloed, elitist, and exclusionary enterprise when its core findings insist that Earthly life is fundamentally interdependent. Peace, the guaranteed security of life, health, and dignity for people and the environment everywhere, cannot be achieved without such recognition. We cannot forget that the deep oceans are connected to the frozen mountains, that the lives of all people are connected to the health of planetary processes. Today, all forms of sentience on this Earth face challenges in socioecological fragmentation and deprivation unseen for millennia. The planet is becoming radically unfamiliar and the relationship between science and politics, knowledge and power must adapt accordingly as human security ultimately depends on the health of the natural world. Planetary ecological systems and global economic systems are deeply interconnected; human and industrial activities are part and parcel of larger Earth processes and must be redesigned accordingly. Current patterns of globalized resource use and economic expansion place significant stress on key components of the biosphere, raising questions about sustainability and governance for generations to come. How can the world’s diverse socio-ecological communities move deftly with the dynamic flow without sinking or wrecking? How can we change human behavior to center the survival of all species for generations to come? We hope you will join us in these conversations on the future of science, peace, people, and the planet.

Nicholas Parlato (Graduate Researcher, Center for Arctic Policy Studies)
Alexandra Middleton, Postdoctoral Researcher at the Oulu Business School, University of Oulu
Heather Sauyaq Jean Gordon (Iñupiaq, Tribal member of the Nome Eskimo Community)
Zia Madani (Assistant Professor, University of Tsukuba)
Susana Hancock (Polar Climate Researcher and Policy Specialist. International Cruosphere Climate Initiative)

References:

Campbell-Stephens, R. M. (2021). Educational leadership and the global majority: Decolonising narratives. Springer Nature.

Faerron Guzmán, C. A., Redvers, N., Ji, J. S., Lacey-Hall, O., Mahmood, J., Masztalerz, O., ... & Myers, S. S. (2025). Planetary Health: Focusing on the Intersection of Human Health and the Earth System. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 50.

Pereira, L. M., Smith, S. R., Gifford, L., Newell, P., Villasante, S., Achieng, T., ... & Zimm, C. (2025). Beyond tipping points: risks, equity, and the ethics of intervention. Earth System Dynamics, 16(4), 1267-1285.

Siegert, M., Sevestre, H., Bentley, M. J., Brigham-Grette, J., Burgess, H., Buzzard, S., ... & Truffer, M. (2025). Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering: a critical assessment of proposed concepts and future prospects. Frontiers in Science, 3, 1527393.